Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Jun;22(6):1423-35.
doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2718-4. Epub 2013 Feb 26.

A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures

Charla R Fischer  1 , Ryan Cassilly, Winifred Cantor, Emmanuel Edusei, Qusai Hammouri, Thomas Errico
Affiliations
Review

A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures

Charla R Fischer et al. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

Background: The increased prevalence of spinal fusion surgery has created an industry focus on bone graft alternatives. While autologous bone graft remains the gold standard, the complications and morbidity from harvesting autologous bone drives the search for reliable and safe bone graft substitutes. With the recent information about the adverse events related to bone morhogenetic protein use, it is appropriate to review the literature about the numerous products that are not solely bone morphogenetic protein.

Purpose: The purpose of this literature review is to determine the recommendations for use of non-bone morphogenetic protein bone graft alternatives in the most common spine procedures based on a quantifiable grading system.

Study design: Systematic literature review.

Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE (1946-2012), CINAHL (1937-2012), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1940-April 2012) was performed, and this was supplemented by a hand search. The studies were then evaluated based on the Guyatt criteria for quality of the research to determine the strength of the recommendation.

Results: In this review, more than one hundred various studies on the ability of bone graft substitutes to create solid fusions and good patient outcomes are detailed.

Conclusion: The recommendations for use of bone graft substitutes and bone graft extenders are based on the strength of the studies and given a grade.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Diagram of literature search with articles removed at each stage
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR, Bronner KK, Fisher ES. United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31(23):2707–2714. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(4):455–463; discussion Z455. pii:00007632-200402150-00019 - PubMed
    1. Burkus JK, Schuler TC, Gornet MF, Zdeblick TA. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion for the management of chronic lower back pain: current strategies and concepts. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004;35(1):25–32. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00053-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dawson EG, Lotysch M, 3rd, Urist MR. Intertransverse process lumbar arthrodesis with autogenous bone graft. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;154:90–96. - PubMed
    1. Dodd CA, Fergusson CM, Freedman L, Houghton GR, Thomas D. Allograft versus autograft bone in scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(3):431–434. - PubMed

Substances